Microtek ScanMaker 6000 - Mandriva

This is a discussion on Microtek ScanMaker 6000 - Mandriva ; When I attempted to install a Microtek ScanMaker 6000 scanner on my 64-bit 2008.1 machine, MCC first downloaded Sane software and then declared that this scanner is not supported under Linux. Does anyone know if there is a work-around or ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Microtek ScanMaker 6000

  1. Microtek ScanMaker 6000

    When I attempted to install a Microtek ScanMaker 6000
    scanner on my 64-bit 2008.1 machine, MCC first downloaded Sane
    software and then declared that this scanner is not supported under
    Linux.

    Does anyone know if there is a work-around or a
    different name that can be given to MCC that will work?

    All I can find on the Wild & Wooly is declarations that
    the 6000 is supported for PC and Mac OS 9 or OS X but
    only up to 1.4. Leopard not supported. Linux not
    supported.

    Cheers!

    jim b.

    --
    UNIX is not user-unfriendly; it merely
    expects users to be computer-friendly.

  2. Re: Microtek ScanMaker 6000

    On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 01:31:56 +0000, Jim Beard wrote:

    > When I attempted to install a Microtek ScanMaker 6000 scanner on my
    > 64-bit 2008.1 machine, MCC first downloaded Sane software and then
    > declared that this scanner is not supported under Linux.
    >

    According to the SANE website www,sane-project.org the Microtek 6000 is
    unsupported (even under the CVS version)> So noi cigar :-(.

    Frmie

  3. Re: Microtek ScanMaker 6000

    frime wrote:
    > On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 01:31:56 +0000, Jim Beard wrote:
    >
    >> When I attempted to install a Microtek ScanMaker 6000 scanner on my
    >> 64-bit 2008.1 machine, MCC first downloaded Sane software and then
    >> declared that this scanner is not supported under Linux.
    >>

    > According to the SANE website www,sane-project.org the Microtek 6000 is
    > unsupported (even under the CVS version)> So noi cigar :-(.


    Thanks. I hoped that someone knew of something I did not
    know how to find, but it seems that Sane is the only game
    in town. No cigar. Not even a plug of chewing tobacco!

    Cheers!

    jim b.

    --
    UNIX is not user-unfriendly; it merely
    expects users to be computer-friendly.

  4. Re: Microtek ScanMaker 6000

    On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 22:33:02 +0000, Jim Beard wrote:

    > frime wrote:
    >> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 01:31:56 +0000, Jim Beard wrote:
    >>
    >>> When I attempted to install a Microtek ScanMaker 6000 scanner on my
    >>> 64-bit 2008.1 machine, MCC first downloaded Sane software and then
    >>> declared that this scanner is not supported under Linux.
    >>>

    >> According to the SANE website www,sane-project.org the Microtek 6000 is
    >> unsupported (even under the CVS version)> So noi cigar :-(.

    >
    > Thanks. I hoped that someone knew of something I did not know how to
    > find, but it seems that Sane is the only game in town. No cigar. Not
    > even a plug of chewing tobacco!
    >
    > Cheers!
    >
    > jim b.


    Sane is almost the only game in town. Epson provides 'iscan' software for
    their line of scanners (it does also set up for sane, as well). If you're
    looking for a scanner that works with Linux, I suggest you check out
    avasys.jp/english first, and then look at the Epson online store.

  5. Re: Microtek ScanMaker 6000

    ray wrote:
    > Sane is almost the only game in town. Epson provides 'iscan' software for
    > their line of scanners (it does also set up for sane, as well). If you're
    > looking for a scanner that works with Linux, I suggest you check out
    > avasys.jp/english first, and then look at the Epson online store.


    Problem is, the Microtek 6000 was my wife's scanner on her iMac,
    until the upgrade to OS X 1.5 Leopard. That broke the Microtek
    driver.

    I had hoped that maybe it could be made to work under Mandriva
    2008, but that did not pan out. I could reboot to XP, download
    a driver from Microtek, and use the thing in an emergency, I
    suppose, but I hate rebooting to XP. I keep it on the system
    only because I will need it if I ever need troubleshooting
    assistance from my ISP (Verizon). They do not do Linux.

    Cheers!

    jim b.

    --
    UNIX is not user-unfriendly; it merely
    expects users to be computer-friendly.

  6. Verizon vs. Linux [was Re: Microtek ScanMaker 6000]

    On 2008-02-29, Jim Beard wrote:
    > ray wrote:
    >> Sane is almost the only game in town. Epson provides 'iscan' software for
    >> their line of scanners (it does also set up for sane, as well). If you're
    >> looking for a scanner that works with Linux, I suggest you check out
    >> avasys.jp/english first, and then look at the Epson online store.

    >
    > Problem is, the Microtek 6000 was my wife's scanner on her iMac,
    > until the upgrade to OS X 1.5 Leopard. That broke the Microtek
    > driver.
    >
    > I had hoped that maybe it could be made to work under Mandriva
    > 2008, but that did not pan out. I could reboot to XP, download
    > a driver from Microtek, and use the thing in an emergency, I
    > suppose, but I hate rebooting to XP. I keep it on the system
    > only because I will need it if I ever need troubleshooting
    > assistance from my ISP (Verizon). They do not do Linux.


    It is possible, even if it is more difficult, to resolve
    problems with Verizon if you only have Linux available--at
    least it was for me. Several times I had to argue with the
    first-level droids who aren't capable of anything other than
    reading from a script, but eventually I got hold of someone
    who actually knew what ping was, and from there it was
    simple to get them to fix the piece of equipment on their
    side that was causing an 80% packet loss.

    Doesn't Micro$loth have a live CD _YET_??? :-)

    --
    Robert Riches
    spamtrap42@verizon.net
    (Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

  7. Re: Verizon vs. Linux [was Re: Microtek ScanMaker 6000]

    Robert M. Riches Jr. wrote:
    > It is possible, even if it is more difficult, to resolve
    > problems with Verizon if you only have Linux available--at
    > least it was for me. Several times I had to argue with the
    > first-level droids who aren't capable of anything other than
    > reading from a script, but eventually I got hold of someone
    > who actually knew what ping was, and from there it was
    > simple to get them to fix the piece of equipment on their
    > side that was causing an 80% packet loss.
    >
    > Doesn't Micro$loth have a live CD _YET_??? :-)


    Perhaps Verizon has improved in the last couple of years.
    The last time I had a problem, the tech would not even
    answer questions on specific settings needed until I had
    run the Verizon trouble-shooting software, which runs only
    on MS or Mac.

    I rebooted to Win98 (at the time), ran the software
    (which accomplished nothing, as I had declared would
    be the case), and got answers to the questions I had.
    Answers in hand, I found where to make the changes
    needed, and rebooted. All then worked.

    But I had to go through the silly exercise with the
    Verizon software.

    jim b.

    --
    UNIX is not user-unfriendly; it merely
    expects users to be computer-friendly.

  8. Re: Verizon vs. Linux [was Re: Microtek ScanMaker 6000]

    On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 02:56:10 GMT, Robert M. Riches Jr. wrote:

    > It is possible, even if it is more difficult, to resolve
    > problems with Verizon if you only have Linux available--at
    > least it was for me.


    Luck of the draw I guess.
    Nary a peep from them when I started my problem reports with
    Running Mandriva Linux, and proceeded to describe problem and
    provide proof it was a problem their side.

    Worst one for trouble shooting was mozilla.com would not resolve in Firefox.
    Could dig their Internet servers and router DNS ips,
    but DNS ips in the router would seem to not respond in time with Firefox.

    Final solution, pushed a new lease into router, received a new
    segment ip with same DNS ips in router and it worked. Go figure.


+ Reply to Thread